President Obama’s proposed new tax on financial institutions is getting mixed reviews on the merits. But any doubt that it is exceptionally well-timed should be removed by a glance at public opinion research. At pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal examines a new Allstate/National Journal survey on trust in institutions, and finds that remarkably large percentages of Americans think that most measures taken by the federal government to deal with the economic emergency have primarily helped banks, corporations, and the very rich.
Now it may be encouraging to discover that not many Americans buy the Rick Santelli narrative that poor people are primarily to blame for the country’s problems, and are now benefitting from the policies of “their” president. But you’d have to figure that a majority of independents and Republicans probably follow a majority of Democrats in adjudging that the wealthy and powerful are the object of most of the government’s efforts to keep the economy afloat. “Clawing back” some of the bailout funds with a new tax will doubtless be very popular, particularly if bank executives continue to foolishly award themselves and their peers with large bonuses. And if congressional Republicans follow their instincts by opposing a bank tax, the partisan impact on public opinion could be pretty large, at exactly the right time.

This item is crossposted from The New Republic.
Recent polls show their movement is thought of more favorably by Americans than either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Political independents are said to be attracted more each day. Progressive dissenters against the “pro-corporate” policies of the Obama administration pine for alliances with them.
But at the same time, Republican politicians constantly ape their rhetoric and seek to deploy them against their Democratic, and sometimes intraparty, enemies.
So the question persists: Is the Tea Party Movement an independent “third force” in American politics? Or is it essentially a right-wing faction aimed at the conquest of the Republican Party?
There are no snap answers to these questions. Tea Party activists unsurprisingly stress their independence from both parties, and their hostility towards the “Republican establishment.” The grassroots and citizen-based nature of the movement is constantly promoted as a bedrock principle. And even when tea-partiers operate in the conventional electoral setting of Republican primaries, their candidates are billed as insurgents, not as intraparty warriors.
But the fact remains that these candidates are almost invariably self-identified Republicans, campaigning on traditional conservative Republican themes, and cooperating with Republican politicians tactically and strategically on major issues. There is zero visible outreach to Democrats of any stripe. And to the extent there is a consensus Tea Party ideology, it is indistinguishable in any significant way from the longstanding agenda of the right wing of the GOP—particular the agenda of the most recent past, when conservatives have sought conspicuously to disassociate themselves from the record of the Bush administration.
Republican politicians are already very active in the movement itself. Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who appears to have a better than even chance of toppling popular Republican governor Charlie Crist in a Senate primary this year, is a major figure in both the Tea Party Movement and more traditional conservative GOP circles. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, generally known as the most conservative Republican U.S. senator, has said: “We need to stop looking at the tea parties as separate from the Republican Party.” (For a look at the rise of Tea Partiers in the House, read Lydia DePillis’s excellent piece.)
What makes this sort of talk especially relevant politically is that it serves a very deep psychological need among contemporary conservative Republicans. They’ve largely succeeded in subduing those few voices in the GOP urging a old-fashioned “big tent” party that’s tolerant of ideological moderates. Now the Tea Party phenomenon offers conservative Republicans a talking point they badly need: evidence that there is a previously hidden conservative majority in the country that only a more sharply consistent conservative message can reach. In other words, electoral gold is to be found on the right, not in the center, of the ideological spectrum. But aside from a shared antipathy towards Barack Obama, “liberals,” taxes, and various other bugaboos, sealing the deal between a “reformed” GOP and Tea Party activists is a complicated proposition.
This much has been made clear by the calling of a National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month, by a for-profit group called Tea Party Nation. Aside from the questionable right of anyone in particular to “convene” this highly decentralized movement, a $549 registration fee has raised hackles in many circles, and it’s not clear how legitimate the Nashville gathering—denounced this week by the highly influential RedState founder Erick Erickson as “scammy”—will turn out to be.
But interestingly enough, no one seems to be complaining about the speakers list put together for the National Tea Party Convention. The big keynote speaker is Sarah Palin; other featured speakers include Republican House members Michelle Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn (the latter a member of the House GOP leadership). Aside from illustrating an unusual and admirable commitment to gender equity in speaking gigs, this lineup does not exactly show uneasiness about alliances with Republican pols.
The Nashville linup also would appear to rebut another commonly held argument that the Tea Party Movement’s independence is guaranteed by its fundamentally libertarian character, so incompatible with the GOP’s heavy reliance on cultural conservatives and foreign-policy neocons. Palin is, of course, the maximum heroine of cultural conservatives. Bachmann is famous for questioning the patriotism of any and all Democrats. Beyond that, Tea Party Convention panelists include the Christian Right warhorse Rick Scarborough of Vision America (notable, among other things, for his advocacy of global conflict with Muslims) and Judge Roy Moore, the famous “Ten Commandments Judge” who’s a favorite of theocrats everywhere. No genuine libertarian would embrace this crew.
Indeed, for all the talk about the Tea Party Movement as a potential “third force” in American politics, it’s just as easy to argue that it’s mainly composed of right-wing Republican activists who have been radicalized by the political and economic events of the last couple of years, and particularly by the election of Barack Obama.
The usefulness of the Tea Party Movement in a full right-wing takeover of the Republican Party is obvious. What’s less obvious is why a close relationship with Republican politicians serves the purposes of truly independent citizen-activists disgusted by the political status quo. Republicans have swallowed a lot of Tea Party rhetoric, but they may be in the process of swallowing up the Tea Party Movement.

Most people who have heard about the Rev. Pat Robertson’s assertion on the 700 Club that Haiti’s earthquake represents some sort of divine retribution for a “pact” made between Haitian freedom fighters and Satan back in 1803 probably shook their heads and chuckled at another sign the old goat is getting up there in years.
But let’s don’t forget this is part of a longstanding Robertson habit that goes back a long way to the days when he was an undoubted major power broker in the Christian Right, the conservative movement, and the Republican Party.
Don’t take my word for it; here’s a good analysis from Peter Wehner at National Review‘s The Corner:

There is another important issue involved here, which is a warped and confused theology Robertson has employed before. For example, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell that on 9/11 God lifted the “curtain” and allowed the enemies of America to give us “probably what we deserve”; and in 1998 he warned after Orlando city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during an annual Gay Day event at Disney World, “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. . . . [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”
Pat Robertson’s argument is as neat and clean as a mathematical equation: God grants blessings and curses on nations and people based on their allegiance and obedience to Him. If things are going well, you’re living right; if things are going badly, you’re living wrong. And it is Robertson himself who can divine the hierarchy of sins that most trouble God.
But this view simply does not correspond with any serious understanding of Christianity.

Couldn’t agree more, but Wehner does not observe that Robertson’s arrogant presumption that he knows God’s Will on every occasion is exceptionally common within the Christian Right, and conservative fundamentalist circles generally. Ol’ Pat’s confident belief that God hates Haiti is no stranger than the equally confident belief of his many Christian Right colleagues over the years that God opposed the Panama Canal Treaty, supports high-end tax cuts and the Iraq War, wants Israel to touch off Armageddon, and dislikes health care reform. If you happen to be a fundamentalist, there’s at least a bit of scriptural evidence to support the Christian Right’s argument against gay rights (though there’s a lot less scriptural basis for their passionate anti-abortion crusade), but it’s hardly the sort of proposition that is self-evident. Robertson’s breezy I-speak-for-God assertions about Haiti don’t really stand out in the Christian Right tradition.
So let’s not marginalize Robertson as a long-in-the-tooth nut who has lost his wits. He’s arguably made his own pact with the Devil to subordinate the Christian Gospel to a single-minded devotion to conservative culture and right-wing politics. And he’s hardly alone.

This item is crossposted from ProgressiveFix.com.
A recent report from a “Democratic Change Commission” authorized by the last national convention to look at the presidential nominating system mainly got attention for its predictable recommendation that “superdelegates” lose their independent voting power. The “supers” will still get convention seats and votes, but said votes will be allocated according to primary or caucus results in their home states (which could make the DC primary of greater-than-usual interest).
A second Change Commission recommendation got a bit of attention: another in a long series of efforts to reduce “front-loading” of the nominating process by pushing the “windows” for allowable primaries and caucuses forward a month (the Commission did not, however, tamper with the two-tiered process by which four states—IA, NV, NH and SC—get their own early “window”).
But virtually no one was aware of a third recommendation, until yesterday, when 538.com’s Tom Schaller interviewed Change Commission member (and 2008 “delegate guru” for the Obama campaign) Jeff Berman. According to Berman, the commission is encouraging the party to award bonus convention delegates to states that agree to cooperate in regional primary/caucus “clusters.” Regional primaries, long a favorite idea of critics of the current system, are relatively efficient ways of enabling candidates to compete for significant delegate counts, particularly when contrasted with the high costs and sheer madness of big, scattered national “clusters” like Super Tuesday, or the inefficiency of dozens of individual contests.
The big questions, of course, are (1) whether the party chooses to make the “bonuses” large enough to actually encourage states to participate in regional primaries, and (2) whether there’s a parallel movement by Republicans, since many states require both parties to hold nominating events on the same day. On this latter point, it’s probably an ideal time for Democrats to make changes in the nominating system, as nobody much expects a challenge to President Obama in 2012. But with Republicans anticipating a wide-open nomination contest, any changes in the system will be scrutinized minutely for their possible impact on particular candidates.
I would argue that a direct assault on the “right” of states to control the presidential nominating process is the only way to ensure major reforms. But barring that, the carrots-and-sticks approach of the Change Commission is perhaps the best available avenue for reform. And there’s no time like the present to undertake it.

At TNR today, TDS Co-Editor William Galston offers President Obama a template for a State of the Union Address designed to assess honestly his first year in office, and signal a relentless focus on economic revival for his second year.
In Galston’s “Dream State of the Union Address,” the President would explain his interventions in the financial system, and the economic stimulus package, as “economic rescue” measures, while also defending the high priority he placed on health care reform in terms of the huge impact of health care costs on the economy. Then comes the “pivot” to the road ahead:

But the issue before us right now is no longer economic rescue; it is economic growth—the right kind of growth—growth that produces jobs, rising wages, and opportunities for advancement. That will be my administration’s principal domestic focus—for the coming year, and for as long as it takes until every American who wants work can find a job with a future.
During the coming year, that goal means, first, that we must assist states and localities so that they are not forced to fire hundreds of thousands of workers; second, that we must offer the private sector effective incentives to hire new workers; and third, that we must create a national infrastructure bank that will mobilize public and private resources to rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and ports . . . and boost investment in the environment and information technology as well.

Moving to longer-range economic challenges, Galston recommends that Obama endorse a strong commission with the power to recommend long-term fiscal savings steps, along with comprehensive tax reform. And on a subject of visceral importance to many voters, he suggests that Obama talk very tough on financial regulation:

Finally, we must make sure that our nation’s largest financial institutions use their power and privilege to help build our country, not to line their own pockets. Congress must overhaul our system of financial regulation—this year—to make sure that what happened in 2007 and 2008 never happens again. And let me be clear: These institutions owe their profitability—and their very existence—to the steps we took that put your taxpayer dollars at risk. If they choose to ignore their responsibilities to you and once again award themselves huge bonuses, I will work with the Congress to ensure that they change course. If they’re not willing to invest their profits in our country’s future, I’ll work to redirect these resources to institutions that are working, not just for themselves, but for you. Holy Scripture and common sense are at one: Greed is not good.

Exercises like Galston’s provide an apt reminder of the power of the bully pulpit, if properly utilized, as an agenda-setter for the nation. Whether or not Obama follows something like Galston’s template, he needs to use that bully pulpit aggressively this year, beginning with his State of the Union Address.

Tennessee was one of America’s original frontier states, full of turbulent Scotch-Irish who did not easily plant roots. The state continued to contribute heavily to the westward migration of Americans, symbolized, of course, by the event that gave the Volunteer State its name: the presence of a large Tennessee element at the Alamo.
After a long history of Tennesseans moving west, all the way to California (many “Okies” had roots in Tennessee), in the mid-to-late twentieth century the state contributed heavily to the biracial migration of southerners to the auto plants and other high-wage opportunities of the Midwest. Bobby Bare’s great country song “Detroit City” is an enduring testament to this migration.
Today Tennessee likes to think of itself as a major magnet for the relocation of Yankees, particularly those who don’t like paying income taxes. But as we saw just yesterday, the restless Volunteer tradition lives on.
The young, smack-talking head coach of the University of Tennessee Volunteers football team, Lane Kiffin, abruptly split for the (west) coast and the glamor program at the University of Southern California, after just one year of making many southern enemies, taking with him his highly paid coaching staff and probably a few Tennessee recruits.
The very same day, former Tennessee Congressman (and 2006 Democratic Senate candidate) Harold Ford, Jr., was making big waves in New York as a putative primary challenger to U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Now I don’t want to push the analogy too far. Kiffin’s departure, timed to wreak maximum damage on Big Orange football prospects, sparked an actual riot in Knoxville. I don’t think any mattresses were burned when Harold Ford quietly decamped from Memphis to New York a while back. Moreover, Ford is an authentic Tennessee native, while Kiffin spent a year there between extended stints in California. And without a doubt, college football is a much bigger deal than politics in Tennessee, as in other southern states.
Still, you have to consider both developments a contribution to Tennessee’s longstanding tradition of itchy feet. And that’s a tough legacy to enjoy.

The possibility of Democrats losing their 60th Senate seat in Massachusetts next week, slim as it is, should concentrate minds once again on the travesty of the 60-vote threshold for enacting legislation in the Senate. The Senate being what it is, of course, prospects for a major change in rules governing filibusters are not that good, unless some new dynamic is introduced.
At The American Prospect, Mark Schmitt may have identified an avenue for Senate reform: link rules restricting filibusters to rules tightening up the use of the budget reconciliation process.
He predicts, quite plausibly, that if Republicans continue to gum up the works in the Senate by voting en bloc against cloture motions, needing just one Democrat (at present) to hold up action, Democrats will increasingly resort to the reconciliation process, which fast-tracks legislation and prevents filibusters. But that’s hardly an ideal scenario:

[B]ecause budget reconciliation was designed for a completely different purpose it makes an awkward fit for big policy initiatives. It’s like entering a house through the pet door instead of the front door — you might fit, if you twist just the right way, but it will be painful. Provisions that don’t directly affect the budget can’t be included, so, for example, much of the fine detail of health-insurance regulation in the current bill would likely have been lost if pushed through reconciliation. If Congress chose reconciliation as the means to pass a jobs bill, it could include tax credits for job creation but probably not many of the infrastructure-spending initiatives that would directly create jobs.

Still, what choice does any majority party in the Senate have if the minority party chooses to block all major legislation? The experience with health reform is all but certain to create momentum among Democrats for using reconciliation whenever possible. And thus the dilemma, says Schmitt:

So what we have in the Senate are two extremes: the rigid, partisan system of near-total stasis created by the filibuster, on the one hand, and the merciless, closed-door, majority-controlled arcane process of budget reconciliation on the other. A solution might be found in reforming both: Loosen the stranglehold of the filibuster…. And in return, offer the minority party a reform of the power of budget reconciliation that currently cuts them out entirely. Start by permanently limiting reconciliation to measures that actually reduce the deficit (a rule the Democrats adopted in this Congress) and then look at reforms that open up the process to longer debate and a wider range of amendments.

Schmitt cites a number of feasible filibuster reforms, including Sen. Tom Harkin’s proposal to gradually lower the votes needed for cloture after repeated efforts to move legislation are thwarted, along with the very popular idea of requiring actual stemwinding filibusters instead of paper threats. But what’s important is Schmitt’s notion of packaging together reforms attractive to both majority and minority parties. The big question is whether Republicans are interested in any reforms, if only because they hope someday to return to majority status in the Senate. Maybe a bill or two whipped through the Senate via reconciliation would bring them around.

MyDD‘s Jonathan Singer has a very encouraging report on the boffo voter registration numbers Dems are racking up in mega-swing state Florida:

Considering how toxic the political environment supposedly is for the Democrats, it might come as a surprise to find that in the key swing state of Florida — which hosts an open seat Senate election this year — new Democratic voter registration is outpacing new Republican voter registration by 43 percent.

Singer reports that 144,368 new Dems were added to the Sunshine state registration rolls in 2009, vs. a comparatively limp 101,025 for the GOP. (141,621 registered as Independents). He quotes from a recent memo from the FL Democratic Party:

Over the course of 2009, Floridians continued to join the Democratic Party in record numbers, ending the year with Democrats having a nearly 800,000 person voter registration advantage…As Democrats continued to out register Republicans every month since the 2008 election, this voter registration gap will continue to be a major advantage for Florida Democrats in 2010 and beyond.

Great news, given Florida’s pivotal influence in the electoral vote outcome — and possibly for Democratic prospects for a Senate seat pick-up in November.

In his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot” at the Center for American Progress, TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira shreds the latest conservative meme: that recent polls showing a plurality of the public opposes the health care reform bills in Congress indicate widespread “distaste for a big government takeover of our health care system.” Teixeira explains:

…In a December CNN poll, a total of 55 percent either favored the Senate health reform bill outright (42 percent) or opposed it at this point because its approach to health care isn’t liberal enough (13 percent). Just 39 percent said they opposed the bill because its approach to health care was too liberal.

Assuming undecideds break roughly even, that suggests 55-58 percent range of support for the Democratic health care bill or reforms that are even more liberal. Apparently, the GOP’s fear mongering about ‘socialized medicine’ is not resonating so well as they would have the public believe. It also suggests that Democratic congressional leadership is on safe political ground in negotiating a more progressive consensus bill, Teixeira adds,

Consistent with these findings, most polls continue to show strong support for key components of the health care reform bills—subsidizing people who can’t currently afford health insurance, preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, requiring mid- to large-size employers to provide health insurance for their workers, and so on—even if the bills themselves are not popular.

Teixeira cites a November CNN poll showing 60 percent support or more for such reforms. He concludes , “…Once the final health care reform bill passes and is signed into law,…conservative hopes of an anti-big government uprising against the legislation will be in vain. The public is just not on their wavelength. Again.”

The special election in Massachusetts next week to fill the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate term is rapidly becoming the national Republican Party’s maximum goal. The occasion–a low-turnout-special election in which Republicans are pre-mobilized and many Democrats are indifferent–is highly favorable to the little-known GOP candidate, Scott Brown. The stakes are very large. Aside from the symbolism involved in winning Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat in the home state of Barney Frank and John Kerry, Brown could and would personally derail final passage of a health care reform conference report in the Senate.
The polls on this race show Brown closing on Democrat Martha Coakley, but only if turnout follows a heavily pro-GOP pattern, much like the pattern Republicans hope for all across the country this autumn. As Nate Silver notes today, a Rasmussen poll showing a virtual dead heat also shows likely voters in this race giving Barack Obama a 57% approval rating. So it’s clear: Republicans are nationalizing this contest among Bay State voters; so, too, should Democrats.
If they do, and there’s any sort of decent Democratic GOTV effort, then GOP hopes for winning this race will probably turn out to be no more than Massachusetts Dreamin’.